The answer to this is more laid into what they base their assumption on that says God is not supernatural. Supernatural is basically defined as being able to do something beyond what is considered "normal" reality. Can you or I do what God does? Of course not. That makes us natural and Him supernatural. So you ask whom ever told you this what exactly do they base that statement upon?

In my experience people often throw things out there like that to test your faith. If your faith is not on solid ground the immediate response is to question what you know or thought you knew. This is also known as planting seeds of doubt. And if you don;t watch it and feed that doubt, that seed will root and grow as other doubts get rooted and before you know it you lose your faith and you are not even sure how it happened.

The rule of thumb in protecting your faith is not to allow what is said or shown to you that questions your faith to be taken at face value as even being true. Because once you think this might be true your faith is totally under attack. And the more you ponder it the more it gets fertilized and the more opportunity it will have to take root and destroy your faith.

When a seed of doubt is presented you have to ask questions:

1) Where is your evidence for this?
If they have only words then it's mere opinion and you need to point this out.

2) What is this based upon?
Is it based upon something in the Bible, or something that was said?

3) Can you prove this?
Can they show you where this idea even came from?

4) What is your source?
Is their source bias or non-bais? And is that source qualified to make such claims that should be even pondered?

Without asking these questions you are allowing exactly what the statement was designed to do by even pondering it and allowing it to make you question your faith. Think of it this way. If in a court of law they took all of what was said at face value, never questioned it, never asked for proof etc... What kind of outcomes would we have? Decisions based on word and opinions. But because our courts get down to the actual evidence and proof their conclusions are based more in fact than opinion. So if you don't question and address this correctly you give their words power to have truth where truth does not exist.

If you studied how Christ addressed questions or objections is that He mainly answered a question with a question. The bases behind doing this is so that when His questioned was answered in their minds that answer actually answered both questions which means they answered their own question which they would immediately accept as truth. The other reason this was done is because it defused an expected debate on what was asked. A deabte means you are in a struggle for who's right more then what's true. Answering a question with a question makes them realize there is nothing really to debate because their answer matches yours. And when you are in agreement, what is their left to debate about?

Just as claims that God ISN'T supernatural is a assumption based upon the "Materialist's" narrow world-view.

A few observations:

1 - All of the Logical evidence for God's existence is not "assumed"

2 - The life of Jesus, His ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, AND the multitude of eyewitnesses concerning the afore-mentioned, knocks the "assumption" out of the conversation.

3 - All of the evidence AGAINST the materialistic (attempted) explanations for origins (universe, life, intelligence), and the fact that atheists cannot even sustain evidence FOR atheism give far greater argument to ATHEISIM being based upon assumption.

Thanks I wasn't worried since in my mind the philosophical evidence of God is solid. Just wasn't sure how to address this question, I guess one way I have thought would be to start where Prof Craig starts, with the creation of the universe. God is the best explanation of the universe as according to Occams Razor- since as Craig says God is a disembodied mind He has no parts hence is not "complex", whereas His thoughts are indeed complex.. (perplexing I know lol)

(Yes I have been watching some of Prof Craigs debates, I think that he gives some great non-religious evidence for God, so people who turn their noses up at religion still have the ability to hear evidences of God of a philosophical nature)

In order to create the universe God would need to be out of time and space (hence supernatural) thus it becomes a natural, (bad pun), part of the premises of Gods existence. Hence to concede the point of God creating the universe is to also concede that God is also supernatural in order to be able to do so. Thus that is evidence of sorts.

Atheism itself is borne on the back of arguments of ignorance. Evolution doesn't disprove God, since they are two totally separate ideas. I find it funny in a few of the interviews / debates I have seen there has been no evidence put forward for atheism, just incredulity of the existence of God.

God creating the universe doesn't necessitate that He be outside of time, but it does necessitate that He be outside of matter (the universe He created). I do happen to think that He is outside of time, but I am just pointing it out logically. Certainly creating matter is supernatural because based on our understanding of natural laws, matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

God creating the universe doesn't necessitate that He be outside of time, but it does necessitate that He be outside of matter (the universe He created). I do happen to think that He is outside of time, but I am just pointing it out logically. Certainly creating matter is supernatural because based on our understanding of natural laws, matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

Wouldn't being outside of "space" (matter) mean God is also outside of time since time is just a word we use for the progression of matter in this reality. Hence no matter = no progression in time

Time is marked by the observation of matter interacting, but does that mean time is inextricably linked to the existence of matter? My instinct is that it is not necessarily so, but there must be a non-material observer, God, and some non-material process with which to mark time. Does His speech and thought prior to the creation of matter count as something that can mark the passage of time? It is quite a logically abstract topic.

I had a friend come across this. She is involved in a ministry running errands for people and one of her passengers asked how she knew that God wasn't an alien. That seems a reasonable explanation to him. Her answer was define God. God is the only eternal uncreated and almighty being in the universe. So if said alien existed, then God would have created him.

I had a friend come across this. She is involved in a ministry running errands for people and one of her passengers asked how she knew that God wasn't an alien. That seems a reasonable explanation to him. Her answer was define God. God is the only eternal uncreated and almighty being in the universe. So if said alien existed, then God would have created him.

God, by definition, cannot be an alien:

First – An “alien” cannot be “God”, an alien can only be someone/something that is not of our area. By definition, an “alien” is either: A being from another planet or another part of the universe, or a citizen of a country other than the one we live in, or somebody who does not belong to or does not feel accepted by a group or society (etc…). On the other hand, GOD claimed to have not only created everything, but created us as well. And God claimed to have created ‘US’ in ‘HIS’ image. Therefore, if God indeed created US, we came FROM HIM, and therefore are not “foreign” OR “alien” to Him.

He is not “a being from another planet or another part of the universe”, but rather He “Created” the universe and all the planets (and us); therefore He is personally invested in the universe and all the planets (and us).

He is not “an alien of a country other than the one we live in”, but rather He “Created” the universe and all the planets and the country we live in; therefore He is personally invested in the universe and all the planets and the country we live in.

And although He may not “feel accepted by some groups or societies”, He created ALL groups and societies, and is therefore invested in ALL “groups or societies” whether or not they accept them. This does not make Him an alien to them, but rather it makes them a willing alienated FROM Him.

Second – The “God is an alien” (see Panspermia) logical fallacy is a misuse of the Law of Parsimony or the Law of Succinctness (see “Occam’s Razor”) which states “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate' (Plurality should not be posited without necessity).

What the arguer of this philosophical tactic is attempting to do, is add as many (unneeded) layers between God and man as they can. But what they fail to realize, is that they cannot eliminate the Prime causation/ Prime Causer (Initial Causative, Creator etc…). They catch themselves in the flypaper of infinite regress every time.

Wouldn't being outside of "space" (matter) mean God is also outside of time since time is just a word we use for the progression of matter in this reality. Hence no matter = no progression in time

Time exists in Heaven: rev 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

Time cannot be measured where time does not exist. The reason this seems confusing is that we think that the passing of time equals aging. But what if aging and time were two separate processes. Where here it progresses with time but in heaven it's constant like the speed of light. In other words time passes but aging process does not exist. In other words a millions years could pass yet the beings in heaven would not even age a day, understand?

This also answers some problems with creation. If nothing ages in eternity then all that was created has to be created with age already added to it. Example: If God created Adam and Eve as babies during the creation before sin (eternal creation which is time before the first sin) then they would never grow up. So God created all living matter already aged and ready to multiply. So if God makes living matter already aged for His creation, why not all dead matter as well?

So God does not actually live outside of time, He lives outsdie the process of aging and getting old. What does not exist in Heaven because of not aging are the laws of thermal dynamics. Those laws require the aging process that is why they exist here.